To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .

To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services
Please confirm that you accept the terms of use.

We report the discovery in the Greenland ice sheet of a discrete layer of free nanodiamonds (NDs) in very high abundances, implying most likely either an unprecedented influx of extraterrestrial (ET) material or a cosmic impact event that occurred after the last glacial episode. From that layer, we extracted n-diamonds and hexagonal diamonds (lonsdaleite), an accepted ET impact indicator, at abundances of up to about 5×106 times background levels in adjacent younger and older ice. The NDs in the concentrated layer are rounded, suggesting they most likely formed during a cosmic impact through some process similar to carbon-vapor deposition or high-explosive detonation. This morphology has not been reported previously in cosmic material, but has been observed in terrestrial impact material. This is the first highly enriched, discrete layer of NDs observed in glacial ice anywhere, and its presence indicates that ice caps are important archives of ET events of varying magnitudes. Using a preliminary ice chronology based on oxygen isotopes and dust stratigraphy, the ND-rich layer appears to be coeval with ND abundance peaks reported at numerous North American sites in a sedimentary layer, the Younger Dryas boundary layer (YDB), dating to 12.9 ± 0.1 ka. However, more investigation is needed to confirm this association.

Benito Arrunãda's paper on the transaction cost problems involved with land, provides an excellent explanation of land legal institutions. This explanation revolves around the fact that land exists through time, and that various exchanges made with respect to land at one time affect exchanges in other times. Arrunãda refers to this as ‘sequential exchange’, and he argues that sequential exchange provides the explanation for state involvement in titling and the default nature of in rem rights. Unfortunately, Arrunãda frames his argument with an inappropriate notion of transaction costs. This creates a confusing language, and a faulty interpretation of Coasean logic. Reframing the first sections of his paper using the ‘property rights’ definition of transaction costs brings brevity and clarity to the ultimate point he is trying to make.

Geoffrey Hodgson has a number of criticisms regarding the ‘economic approach to property rights’ that has been mostly championed by members of the UCLA and Washington departments of economics during the 1960s–1990s. In this short note I address these comments and point out that most are simply a matter of nomenclature. When there are disagreements they stem from Hodgson’s failure to account for positive transaction costs and this literature’s emphasis on operational explanations of organization.

Ronald Coase detested ‘blackboard economics’ and as a result was often criticized for being ‘against theory’. Coase has also been criticized for being overly descriptive in his institutional analysis. Here, I claim that Coase was both theoretical and interested in hypothesis testing. In order to do Coasean analysis, however, it is necessary to analyse a subject matter at the deep transaction level, given the definition of transaction costs. The rich level of detail required may give the impression of an absence of theory or testing. Here, I provide a number of real farm examples and contrast them with blackboard farm economics to make this point.

There exists a long line of challengers to the ‘Coase Theorem’. All of these rest on fundamental misconceptions of property rights, transaction costs, and their interaction. Here I examine two attacks that have gone unchallenged: one by Halpin, the other by Usher. I argue that both, in failing to either use or understand an adequate definition of transaction costs, fail to deliver a fatal blow to Coase's famous idea.

The Working Group FITS (WG-FITS) is the international control authority for the Flexible Image Transport System (FITS) data format. The WG-FITS was formed in 1988 by a formal resolution of the IAU XX General Assembly in Baltimore (MD, USA), 1988, to maintain the existing FITS standards and to approve future extensions to FITS.

When George Carmack struck gold in the Yukon territory on 17 August 1896, he freely shared the details and started what would eventually be three waves of rushes. This reflected a social norm of the Klondike, namely that any miner who struck gold would share this information. Miners did not behave this way in other nineteenth-century gold rushes. The article's hypothesis is that the extreme mining conditions and local geography of the Yukon led to very secure property rights over mining claims. Therefore, it took only a small incentive payment to induce miners to act in the social interest.

With several countries currently reconsidering the status of their existing marriage and divorce legislation, there has begun an increased interest in the “facts” regarding the actual impact of laws on marriage and divorce behavior. For those interested in a simple answer, a simple perusal of the economic literature will not be very satisfactory. There, some argue that the law merely reflects the social norms of the time, and is impotent in changing any behavior. Others argue that the law is critical in establishing the constraints and threat points that couples bargain under, and therefore the laws do influence behavior. Presumably an empirical analysis of these issues could settle this dispute, but unfortunately, though the questions are relatively straightforward, the answers seem very difficult to pin down. Furthermore, although the effect of marriage laws must filter into all types of household decisions – from the choice of living together or becoming married, to the choice over what career path to take – almost all of the academic attention has been devoted to the effect of no-fault divorce laws on the divorce rate, with relatively minor attention paid to female labor force participation.

When it comes to marriage law, as detailed as that subject is, most people simply mean the no-fault divorce laws that swept the Western world in the early 1970s.